November 1, 2009

Last night I spent more than an hour listening to a speech Kaiser Kuo gave at the University of Nebraska – Lincoln on what the Internet has meant for China, and for US-Chinese relations. I was thinking about breaking the speech down, but then saw that a friend of mine had already done so, with greater patience and diligence than I would have mustered. I can’t recommend strongly enough that you listen to the speech and read my friend’s response and partial transcript.

Kaiser and I don’t always see eye to eye on China. But I thought this speech was practically perfect, elucidating how Chinese “netizens” perceive their American counterparts and visa versa, and giving the students in the audience more insight into today’s Chinese youth than they’d get from reading a hundred articles (or even blog posts). His love of China is always evident, but so is his clear-headedness and lack of prejudice, insisting that we see the situation from both Chinese and American eyes, and showing compassion for both sides. We need to remember, there is no black and white, that there are always two sides to the equation. What sometimes seems so obvious to us – raging nationalism, defense of a ruthless one-party system – cannot be understood without context and an understanding of the kind of world in which these people grew up and the extraordinary evolution of their country. And we need to understand how they see us, too, and why.

A beautiful job, and the best single discussion I’ve ever heard of the Internet in China.

The Discussion: 67 Comments

1 By merp

What the delusional corporate press of America needs to address is how their bias is INFURIATING Overseas Chinese.

Of the Mainlanders I know, very few of them are nationalistic. It seems like 80% of them only care about trendy crap. All of the Hong Kongers I know and many Taiwanese (even some former DPP) are pissed off by America’s shitty coverage of China. Chinese people living in Southeast Asia, Europe, and European-colonized landmasses such as Americas/Australia are somewhere in between.

If anything anti-Chinese reporting has resulted in a surge in pro-China sentiment in the so-called “Free Chinese”.

Also, isn’t it a tiny bit hypocritical to profess your boundless love for mother fatherland the PRC from abroad? At least me, Richard, FOARP and nearly everyone else on this forum spent long years in China…

Poet, I believe that most US correspondents in China are China lovers and are doing the best to report the truth. Unfortunately, there is media bias against China, most often occurring in the editorial offices back in the US. You’ll see this in editorials and op-eds by people who’ve never been to China, railing about Tibet or the TSM. They may mean well, but the fact that they haven’t tried to see the situation through Chinese eyes reveals their built-in prejudices. Many liberal blogs I enjoy do the same thing, especially when it comes to Tibet.

Needless to say, the Chinese media bias against the West is even more apparent because it is across the board and is woven into so many news stories (not just op-eds) on a regular basis. One example is the constant reference to America as the sole cause of the global economic meltdown (which isn’t to say America wasn’t the leading payer), and the constant referrals to the “chaos” of Russia as an example of the evils of democracy. News coverage of Taiwan and Tibet is hopelessly manipulated, leaving out vast swaths of information. The US media have their biases, but they constantly blast the US government no matter who is president, and dig up dirt that incriminates America’s most powerful, all the way up to the president.

But the fact that China’s media has some, um, prejudices doesn’t absolve prejudiced American bloviators, and I can honestly understand why many Chinese have huge issues with the US media. These concerns were brought to fever pitch with Anticnn, and it is easy to see why so many Chinese have been won over (including some of my closes friends in Beijing), as unfair as many of Anticnn’s arguments may be. On the whole, I find US reporting about China to be reasonably good, and certainly not “anti-Chinese.”

I find US reporting about China to be reasonably good, and certainly not “anti-Chinese.”

Really, Richard? You’re denying the element of racial hatred and religious intolerance towards “yellow heathens” that fuels not only American dislike of China, but of Japan, Korea and other nations.

The American media, for as long as anyone can recall, has consistently slandered China and the Chinese people. Racist attacks and things like the Tsunami Song are commonplace. Chinese people are fed up, the mainland much less so.

He does address how infuriated the Chinese are with our media, and he tries to help the students understand why this is so. He does not insult the Chinese youth for this sentiment, but he tries to explore it and asks us to see what it’s about. Did you find his speech biased against China?

Merp, I am giving you a lot of slack. But I will ban you if you get too nasty. Many of the US correspondents in China have yellow skin. They are not racists. I know many if not most of them personally. And I won’t let you slander them. Either provide the evidence or keep it to yourself.

The one thing I like about my blog is that it brings together Chinese and Westerners, and despite the heatedness of the threads we actually have some interesting conversations and even learn from each other from time to time. Get passionate, get emotional, say what’s on your mind but don’t throw shit at people, okay?

Who gave you the right to tell the white, tan, red, or brown Chinese they’re “yellow”?

They are not racists. I know many if not most of them personally.

Please, give me a break. This is just another excuse for you to bury the issue. No, those reporters calling the cold blooded murder of 150+ innocent civilians in the Tang city of Urumqi a “protest” were overwhelmingly NOT of what Americans crudely call “yellow skin”.

And that idiot Michelle Malkin is also considered of the same race as the Chinese by Americans, but she has 0 genetic, cultural or historical ties to China. But of course you aren’t talking about her.

Where do you see racism in the reporting from the China foreign correspondents? I can see at least an argument, valid or not, about media bias against China, but racism – that you have to fill us in about, without angry generalizations.

And note how you’ve highjacked another thread, so instead of talking about Kaiser’s great speech we are talking about whatever bomb you throw into the dialogue.

This is *related* to Kaiser’s speech. Yes, he covers the basics. I’m talking about what he’s missing- something key to China-US relations.

Racism against Chinese? Is essentially *cheering* for the deaths of 150+ Chinese civilians not racism?

So if Iranians with neo-Nazi sympathies killed 150 Israelis in Jerusalem and the headlines read “Conflict between Jerusalem natives and Jew colonists claims lives of 187″ you wouldn’t raise an eyebrow?

And I can tell you exactly why, historically and otherwise, that analogy applies if you have the desire to learn at least a little about the history of Xinjiang.

Unless you won’t tolerate it for being “irrelevant”- like the lives of 150 Han Chinese men, women and children that were lost in the Tang city of Urumqi.

Racism against Chinese? Is essentially *cheering* for the deaths of 150+ Chinese civilians not racism?

This is why some Americans feel exasperated when trying to have a rational discussion with our Chinese counterparts. No on ever did what you say, ever. Maybe they were too easy on the perpetrators, maybe they saw the Chinese at fault for the protest. no on cheered their deaths. I agree there is bias at times. There is nothing like cheerleading for the deaths of Chinese. I can document examples in American blogs of cheerleading for the deaths of Muslims. But I have never seen that in the major media, not toward any ethnic group. Bias, yes. Being gleeful over their slaughter, never. Where have you seen it? Which media?

And let me remind my readers that Merp, for all his anti-American bluster, is living a nice life here in the country he finds so malignant.

I said “essentially”. And I’d have a nice life in nearly any place I chose to go to.

I only *wish* that all of the East Asian Americans would leave America. You’d lose 20% of your doctors and researchers and America’s net wealth would drop by 7% or more.

So if a news report called a neo-Nazi/Iranian attack on Jewish civilians in Jerusalem a “protest” and called the Israelis “Jew colonists sent by the Zionist government” you would call this mere ignorance and not malice? Honestly?

And again I will take an article and transliterate it piece by piece and source you the historical context if you really want to have a real discussion.

You are raising false equivalents. The Jews are often described as settlers, as colonizers of Palestinain land in the US media, and there has been a strong backlash against them. And when you say it is “essentially racist,” you still have to back up why you call it that. No US media ever cheered the murder of Chinese. Some may have fallen for a false version of events. Some may be biased. They are not racist, especially not in the case of the Uighurs. There is far more American bias directed toward the Uighurs, many of whom are perceived to be jihadists, than there is toward the Chinese. I have never seen racism against the Chinese in any of these stories, not even once. Bias, maybe. Show me the racism. Just give me, say, three links to US mass media stories you find racist against the Chinese. Or even two. Racism is a powerful charge. Be prepared to back up what you say.

Which leads me to ask, who gave you (merp) the right to call people of Chinese descent in America “Overseas Chinese”? Same question particularly applies to those of HOng Kong-ese and Taiwanese descent!

When I made the reference to “yellow skin” – something I would not say myself – I was referring to Merp’s own comment in which he said:

This is just another excuse for you to bury the issue. No, those reporters calling the cold blooded murder of 150+ innocent civilians in the Tang city of Urumqi a “protest” were overwhelmingly NOT of what Americans crudely call “yellow skin”

I have never, ever used the term yellow in more than 6 years of running this blog, except in the comment addressing your comment in which you employed the term.

Okay, this is going to scare other readers away. Ferin, I will think about how to deal with you. I do whatever I can to keep this open to anyone who wants to comment. But this thread has been highjacked.

Merp, I don’t know how to break this to you, but the largest portion of the “150 years of racial and religious hatred directed at the Chinese from the Americans” is something that exists in your own head, that you are projecting onto several hundred million people, the majority of whom haven’t thought deeply enough about these issues to be filled with the depths of rage that you ascribe to them.

Do prejudices exist? Sure. Was there shameful institutionalized racism against Chinese in American history? No one is denying it.

But most of this hatred and fury you’re expressing is something that exists inside of you. Most Americans just don’t care. Maybe that’s what actually bothers you. They don’t care.

Sorry for the dime-store psychology here, but you are not living in reality.

I’ll give it about five minutes before you come back with a sad list of cases proving your point that racial hatred against Chinese people exists in the US, but you know, I could draw up a list that would put yours to shame illustrating the depth of misogyny that exists…oh…everywhere on the planet. But that would be pretty pointless, wouldn’t it?

I was going to comment that I found Kaiser’s comments about the pollution most striking. I’d had a hard time understanding some of the reactions to this issue (for example on the thread below) and thought what he said was right on.

Thanks Lisa. Just about everything Kaiser said was right on, but Merp just wants to rail against America – another phenomenon Kaiser mentioned, with sympathy for why these feelings exist. I can actually appreciate why Merp might feel this way, but when the hysteria ruins any hope for a meaningful conversation….

Merp, I am holding your comments for approval. They’ll appear as long as you’re not just shouting invective. Thanks for your understanding.

Merp, a 90 year old Cantonese/Taishanese has most probably experienced a lot more of the racism I addressed in my comment. I would still be hesitant to say too much about an entire group of peoples’ experiences from one or two anecdotal samples.

And yes. I’m pretty confident in saying that of all the “isms” and “nys” out there, misogyny is by far the most universal and deeply held. But that doesn’t have anything to do with the topic of this post. I only mentioned it because you can come up with all kinds of horrific examples of irrational prejudices and hatreds if you are looking for them, and quite honestly, in the US, hate crimes committed against Chinese people would make up a much smaller list than crimes committed against many other groups (African Americans, women, gays, etc.). And I hate even going down this road of “who wins the Oppression Olympics?” Except I think your anger has overwhelmed your rationality, so okay, I went there.

Oh, merp is ferin? I should have guessed. I remember thinking “wow, this guy is almost as angry and misinformed as good ole Ferin.” or “yourfriend,” or whatever new name he comes up with after he is banned.
In that case, I’ll end this conversation and just say: Ferin, take a vacation somewhere. Go sip a cocktail by a pool. Take a swim with dolphins or something. Anything that might calm you down a little bit and lighten your immense grudge against the world around you, for your own health.

Because African Americans and women are a much larger share of the population. “Asians” are disproportionately singled out for hate crimes when they’re available, close to those rates associated with perceived “gayness” and perceived “Jewishness” in the US.

Ferin, take a vacation somewhere. Go sip a cocktail by a pool. Take a swim with dolphins or something. Anything that might calm you down a little bit and lighten your immense grudge against the world around you, for your own health.

Mr. Kuo’s suggestions are great, but are too often asked of westerners and not their Chinese counterparts, a situation which I find to be a bit “condescending” to the Chinese, as if they are too “chlidish” to take on the responsibilities of mature discourse.

Chinese netizens can’t: avoid being condescending, learn what Americans actually think, and open a darn history book once in a while?

For some reason, a lot of so-called “in-touch and sensitive” commenters enjoy giving Chinese netizens a pass when it comes to trying to understand the world outside, and expect foreigners to pick up the slack. I think this stems from:

1. worldly writers like Kuo overestimating China’s cosmopolitanism i.e. (yes Chinese people have more exposure to US pop culture than Americans do of Chinese pop culture, yes Shanghai has “western” bars and nowadays even back water towns have a KFC, unfortunately this doesn’t make them any more “understanding” of the West (actually familiarity with our pop culture probably only makes them more delusional about American life))
2. A sympathetic but ultimately unhelpful “lowering of the bar” for the Chinese public in terms of their interaction with the outside world asking us to understand the Chinese as communicative “infants” who can’t be expected to converse reasonably with the outside world yet. In the end, as usual the “ignorant” West is asked to make the unrequited effort.

I’m so tired of being asked to “understand” China. If you know my background, I’ve already spent years and years and a lot of money “understanding” China. It’s time for China to make more of an effort to “understand” the West in order to promote healthier communication, otherwise I guarantee we will be having the same petty arguments five, ten, twenty years from now.

I Believe There’s No Need For Countries to Frequently Communicate with Each Other

Roughly speaking ,there are types of “conversations”: one is for “expressing opinions”, the other is for “controlling others’ behaviors”. Everyone knows about the “expressing opinions” one. So this post will discuss the “controlling others’ behaviors” type of conversation.

I do not want to have any lengthy private converstaions with any one here, simply because I want to avoid being controlled and lose my own principles and opinions. One effective way to control others is to “insincerely praise” others. For example, if I make friends with some of you, you may say “Math, I follow all of your posts, and I love your writing! You always have very insightful analysis on issues!”. If I accept that praise and feel content, then I’ll like that person, and think that I’m obligated to do things that will bring more praise. So he may imply that “It’ll be best if in the future you can write about this and that….”, and I will have fallen into his trap, and slowly move towards his direction, and lose myself. So maybe in the future, my writings will change as a result, just like he wanted.

Another way is to use the “you dissapoint me” technique. For example, you may first praise your kid regulary. Then suddenly one day, you say to your kid “Honey, you are usually great, but what you did today dissapointed me.” The kid’s psychology will then feel a need please you, and will change his behavior to make you praise him more, and will slowly be led by your schemes. So if you say that “Math, I like your writings usually, but what you wrote today dissapointed me.”, I will say back, “Well I don’t give big shit if you are dissapointed, I’m glad to dissapoint and anger you, hahaha!.”. There’s a famous Chinese author who said famously, “I’m a literary scoundrel, who should I be afarid of?!”

These types of “controlling others’ behaviors” conversations are most effectively used by women. A woman may ask you “May you help me open this window?” It seems to be a very democratic request, and it’s up to you to help her. But if you refuse, she will give you a very dissapointed look, and may even ask you, “Why won’t you help me? Do you think I’m ugly?”. And again, this seems like a very democratic question, and it’s up to you to answer yes or no. But in essense it forces you to say “No, I don’t think you are ugly.” , and slowly your behaviors are being led into her schemes. For me, if she asks me “May you help me open this window?”, I’ll of course say “No, I may not.” And if she then asks “Why won’t you help me? Do you think I’m ugly?”. I’ll unhesitantly say, “I do, you are too ugly.”.

How did Gorbachev fall for the American trap and started those “glastnost” that led to the breakup of the USSR? Well the Americans had many high-leel diplomats (including Reagan himself) to have wine and dinners and parties with him, and try to “get very intimate with him” and insincerely praised him frequently over casual settings. so they slowly influenced and changed his behavior. And soon, Gorbachev’s mental guard was let down, and his thinking was changed, and as we know, the USSR collapsed as a result. How terrifying such conversations are!

In fact, when American diplomats try to convince a nation to do something, they always try to insincerely praise its leaders. For example, they’ll say to the Chinese leader, “You have made great economic success, and you did an impressive job of keeping growth and peace in your country. And you have made improvements on Human Rights”. The Chinese leader may be unalert, and accepts that praise, and feels dizzy because of the praise. Then the American diplomat may say “Now, you’ll impress everyone even more if you can release some of your jailed prisoners, etc etc.” Then, slowly, and gradually, the Chinese leader will try to fullfil those demands, just to get more empty and sweet praises. And over the course of 10 years, it’ll have “peacefully transformed” China’s behavior into what America wants.

I believe Mao was very aware of such “controlling behavior” conversations. So he never formed any close relationship with any foreign leaders or diplomats. He may chat very intimately and at length with Chinese farmers, with professors, etc. But when it comes to foreign diplomats, he always kept the conversation very superficial and very distant, and if the diplomat wanted to discuss real issues, he will refer them to his assistants and other Chinese officials. One reason so many Americans fear Mao and think he’s great is that America was never able have those “intimate talks” with Mao and control his behavior.

Many nations today have established “direct hotlines” between their leaders, so the leaders can talk to each other directly anytime they want. Or establish forums for regular citizens to “communicate” and “understand” each other and to “bridge” difference. My suggestion is that those communication channels should be cut off immediately. Maintaining infrequent contact is enough.

Andy, I get your points, but you need to remember, most of the people Kaiser was addressing, and those for whom he’s writing his book, haven’t lived in China for years and have no way of seeing things through Chinese people’s eyes.

“How did Gorbachev fall for the American trap and started those “glastnost” that led to the breakup of the USSR? Well the Americans had many high-leel diplomats (including Reagan himself) to have wine and dinners and parties with him, and try to “get very intimate with him” and insincerely praised him frequently over casual settings. so they slowly influenced and changed his behavior. And soon, Gorbachev’s mental guard was let down, and his thinking was changed, and as we know, the USSR collapsed as a result. How terrifying such conversations are!”

A simply laughable distortion of recent history. Gorbachev gam to power after three Soviet leaders died in the course of three years, and was hand-picked by Chernenko as a reformist successor. Gorbachev did not ‘fall’ into any trap, ‘Glasnost’ and ‘Perestroika’ were plans he had before he even became general secretary, and were, if anything, inspired as much by the more modest reforms in China than they were by any specific western influence.

“I believe Mao was very aware of such “controlling behavior” conversations. So he never formed any close relationship with any foreign leaders or diplomats.”

Mainly because he was too busy signing death-warrants, and keeping the Chinese people in a state of continuous revolution and civil war for ten long years.

“One reason so many Americans fear Mao and think he’s great is that America was never able have those “intimate talks” with Mao and control his behavior.”

Except that this is exactly what Nixon/Kissinger did.

“Many nations today have established “direct hotlines” between their leaders, so the leaders can talk to each other directly anytime they want. Or establish forums for regular citizens to “communicate” and “understand” each other and to “bridge” difference. My suggestion is that those communication channels should be cut off immediately. Maintaining infrequent contact is enough.”

Yes, wouldn’t the Cuban missile crisis have gone so much more smoothly if Kruschev and Kennedy hadn’t had the hotline?

The internet is where Chinese Netizens meet with Western Netizens meet and unfortunately for the worse. Last week I was at a library to look to borrow a book for my daughter and I found a Children’s book on China which I find it interesting. It tells of the TS incident 1989 where it describes its citizens was repressed when they are looking for democracy. Talking about early childhood brainwashing.

@AndyChinese netizens can’t: avoid being condescending, learn what Americans actually think, and open a darn history book once in a while?

Chinese netizens are not condescending, they’re just mad. They know what Americans really think, you’re just lying to yourself about it.

And yes, they know only the better parts of your history. There should be more emphasis on American atrocities towards non-Chinese as well.

It’s time for China to make more of an effort to “understand” the West in order to promote healthier communication

The point is, as people who are supposed to be upholding the standards of “free societies”, and people who are in a better position to obtain information, it would serve you well to at least know the basics before you lecture everyone else on how their country should be.

They aren’t trying to convert you to authoritarianism, Westerners on the net on the other hand are just proving that corporations can just “buy” a “free” society.

Oh for fuck’s sake, Merp. I have some sympathy for your arguments (I too believe that corporations have bought democracy) but then you go so far over the top you ruin your own credibility. Get some therapy. Seriously.

Interesting speech from Kuo. Speaking of the Copenhagen Agreement (he mentioned it in his speech as a possible solution to bring the East and the West closer together, thanks to the climate change issue)…

Su, he isn’t necessarily banned, but I’m monitoring his comments. Look at the thread. From the very first comment, he took us off the subject and bombarded us with the same tired crap he puts in every comment – America is racist, imperialist, evil. If you feel this blog is “full of China bashing” you may want to go elsewhere anyway. And it’s not true. You can discuss China’s and America’s faults and problems without bashing. I get criticized all the time for being too soft on China and giving the CCP too much slack. Then I get hammered for “China bashing” although that’s an obscene and unfounded charge. This post is about an excellent speech on the Chinese Internet. It’s okay to disagree with it or criticize it as Andy R did above. But Merp is just having a blast, throwing the conversation into chaos. If that is what you want to see here, you may be disappointed.

‘“Yellow” does not fit and is an antiquated term. Unlike blacks who are sometimes black, “yellow” people are not “yellow”. Learn where this bullshit term came from before you comment further.’

Jesus Christ, are you actually ethnic Chinese living in the United States? Because in my experience, “yellow” is basically out of use in the US (and I would say widely viewed as antiquated and racist, though I don’t really know what other people think) while it is the NORM in China.

You’ll see this in editorials and op-eds by people who’ve never been to China, railing about Tibet or the TSM. They may mean well, but the fact that they haven’t tried to see the situation through Chinese eyes reveals their built-in prejudices.

Richard, using “prejudice” to refer to western criticisms of Chinese colonialism in Tibet and elsewhere is as wrong as attributing European or Arab criticisms of US neocolonialism in Iraq and elsewhere as “anti-American.” Would you advocate “seeing through British eyes” or “seeing through French eyes” as a response to criticism of the brutality of European colonialism? How is China’s behavior or motivation in Tibet different from Leopold’s in the Congo? Should missionary critics of the rubber trade have tried to “see through Belgian eyes”? I think not — what we are really looking at is the Unmentionable Double Standard in reporting on China, which really is a racist standard, that China typically gets less criticism for doing things that western nations did and were roundly criticized for, and we are asked to make more room for them when they behave thusly. This is a special kind of racism that regards the Chinese as less than westerners, because less is expected of them.

I admire your ability to try and steer around these issues, as well as your advocacy of better, clearer, more nuanced reporting on China. But here I think you are wrong.

Michael, what I am referring to is the tendency among some pundits to see Tibet only through the eyes of the Free Tibet-type organizations – a view that Tibet was a Shangri-la, that the Dalai Lama is a saint, and that all the Chinese do is kill and repress Tibetans. Whether or not any or all of that is true is not the issue and I don’t want to debate it here (we’ve done that many times). The issue is failing to see the broader picture of Tibet and writing about it as though it’s all black or white. I don’t believe what China is doing in Tibet parallels King Leopold in the Congo, though there is plenty to criticize and I understand why the Tibetans are less than delighted. Before blasting off about it, the writer should at least understand the whole story and do some research. That’s all.

The Krause speech was interesting. By the way, my name is meant to poke fun, I am not a lover of my own country either. I am always amazed at the sweeping generalizations of what it means to be Chinese, or American, or “whatever.” My personal experience with people in China has ranged from nouveau riche factory owners to donkey cart drivers, business developers to construction laborers, university students to family farm field workers. There is almost no way to categorize these people as a block other than to refer to their citizenship. Their educational, financial, social and cultural experiences run the gamut. American citizens come from a broad spectrum as well. Think about the experiences of a rural midwesterner who has never ventured out of the area versus a new Yorker who have never ventured out of the city, or the world view of an Ivy League academic versus a day laborer in California’s central valley. The point to all of this rambling is that true understanding seems to come from actual experience. If the actual experience is unattainable, extensive research, and open mind and a real desire to get to know the “other” will eventually lead to real communication. Before long, we will all realize that the “other” shares more things in common than we could have ever imagined. I hop that’s not too naive, but I thought I’d try to insert something positive into the discussion.

About

A peculiar hybrid of personal journal, dilettantish punditry, pseudo-philosophy and much more, from an Accidental Expat who has made his way from Hong Kong to Beijing to Taipei and finally back to Beijing for reasons that are still not entirely clear to him…